does time exist outside the universe?

Time and space are interconnected (the faster you go in space, the slower time becomes), so i assume (i haven’t read any theories, if there are good ones on this issue please give them to me) that time & space are interdependent.

Assuming the universe came from non-space, does that mean that the universe exists in non-time/non-space? that outside of the time & space based existence of the universe(s), that neither exists?

I dont believe that “the faster you go in space, the slower time becomes” is anything more than a theory and i dont believe time physically (or mentally, spirtually…) exists.


Time exists. And I am it.

Well, aside from saying that the answer is “42”, my comment would be that no-one currently has any idea of what Time really “is”, so it’s not possible to really say how it works inside the universe never mind outside (wherever that is). Every attempt to define Time that I’ve ever read has been based on circular logic, ie it uses some concept of Time in the definition.


That’s funny, because the experimental evidence confirms it :stuck_out_tongue:

In reference to the OP, nothing exists “outside” of the universe.

So the current theory is that the ‘stuff’ universe is beyond void, beyond time, space & nothingness or what?

what i meant to say is, the universe has time & space, and these things don’t exist ‘beyond’ the universe?

We don’t know what’s beyond the universe. It can’t be observed or tested. Our laws of physics break down and can’t predict things outside of our reality. Maybe there’s a multiverse, maybe it’s an oligoverse, or a biverse, or whatever. Perverse even. The bottom like is we can speculate whatever we want, we just lack the ability to find out.

Azael - your link does seem to prove that time goes slower as you go faster…

but i still dont think time exists (i think it is another one of man’s inventions)

man779977 - do you mean the concept? the word? or the process?

Are you saying ‘time does not exist’ in the same sense that buddhists say ego does not exist, or a ‘cup’ does not exist?


I’m hardly an expert on the current theory but… since the universe is “everything,” there can hardly be anything “outside” of it. In any event if there were we would have no concievable way of observing or interacting with whatever that might be.


Actually looking again at your question I have no idea what you mean.

The theory that the universe is best described by a four-dimentional space-time is Relativity Theory. It was by some guy named Einstein. You may be able to find some material on it somewhere.

next time you go to the library to pick up your ‘babysitter club’ novels why don’t you check a copy of this out for me?

my apologies if you weren’t being sarcastic.

That is not necessarily true. At least not according to the M Theory

Where’s the limit of the observable universe for someone standing on a planet at the edge of our observable universe ? Does she see things behave oddly off in the direction away from earth or not ?
If yes, then perhaps there is no time outside our observable universe.
If no, then time behaves normally even beyond our observable universe.
She could even send us a message telling us of her obervations, but we’d have no way to verify whether what she tells us is true.

Physics does not have a “yes” or “no” answer to this question, for at least two reasons. First, we don’t have a complete picture of physics yet. (That is not an invitation to declare that scientists actually have no idea how stuff works and publish a book on that fact yourself.) Even if we did work with one specific theory of physics, like relativity, we still wouldn’t have an answer. That’s because, Second, you have to apply an interpretation to what you have. Physics does not tell us things like “Time exists” or “Time doesn’t exist.” It says things like “G[sub]ab[/sub] = 8pi T[sub]ab[/sub]”. In order to go from that to some metaphysical-sounding sentence on the existence of time, you have to apply some pretty hefty interpretations, and often it’s not very clear which interpretation is right. So you wind up with things like Schrödinger’s cat, where you don’t know what the equation is telling you.

That all depends. Our universe is theoretically “infinite” and “bounded”. In a nutshell, it all actually boils down to math. The math works. Until somebody comes up with an actual empirical observation that falls too far outside the math currently used, the math won’t change. It’s the nature of science. Models are used, warts and all, until enough gets observed to upset the model.

“I became a scientist because I had a love of certainty and a great desire to seek ultimate Truth. This is a lot like becoming an archbishop in order to score chicks.”

If I let the kitty out of the box, will he play with the string theory?